The death of architectural detail … on anything

[Luca]

The cost thing is somewhat of a canard, though not entirely,

What I mean is: A lot of architectural detail could be produced very cheaply nowadays (i.e. no hand-sculpted on location). It would still cost SOME money but then the (hackneyed) landscaping and pseudo-decorative fixtures retail does sport cost money too. They are assumed to matter. Attractive architecture is not supposed to matter and I’m inclined to think that retailers/office building developers aren't all just dumb.

So, as often is the case, we get what we (collectively) deserve.

I WILL go out of my way to patronize an establishment that is architecturally superior (ceteris paribus). I guess most people don't. Therein lies the problem.

Cass Gilbert buildings were expensive (in relation to incomes then) when he built them, too. But no self-respecting company would slink into an ugly building. These days, people don't care so much.

[nrschmid]

Luca brought up a good point about landscaping. Many buildings nowadays, both residential and non-residential, have some degree of foundation landscaping, including but not limited to, shade trees, ornamental trees, shurbs, perennials, prairie grasses (all of which can easily add over tens of thosands of dollars for a small building). Apart from some flowers in a pot this was almost unheard of on older commercial buildings. Landscaping is used to soften the architectural features of the building (which is acknowledging that the building was dull to begin with).

I attached a photo of mixed use building located on the southwest corner of Harlem Avenue and Northwest Highway (6400 N), in the Edison Park neighborhood on the far northwest side of Chicago. I lived a few miles from here. The building used to be just a one story florist from the 50's. In the mid nineties it was bought by Century 21. Now, Century 21 still has offices on the first floor, along with other commercial/retail, with condos above.

This bird's eye view still shows it under construction, but now there is berming around the building (which looks totally ridiculous since this is in the city and not in a far out suburb). The berming goes up to the top of the white band at the base, which means the ground floor is actually about 5-8' higher than the surrounding buildings. I think with the same money they could have had a plaza with decorative pavers (probably as expensive) or just poured concrete and spent more money on moldings, friezes, and decorative brickwork, stuco on the building itself.

Oh well.

[Peter Whitley]

Sorry for being obtuse but I don't know what foundation landscaping is. I'm familiar with that peculiar type of ornamental landscaping that seems to occur particularly in office parks where there is virtually no pedestrian traffic (unless you count people walking to their cars). The green spaces in these environments seems to disinvite walking but is gorgeous and easy to understand at 40 miles per hour.

Strikes me that this type of landscaping serves a purpose as well. While seating walls and terraces could encourage some activity, doesn't the berm also serve some kind of identifying feature? I'm not trying to play devil's advocate or any of that nonsense (I'd be hopelessly underequipped), I'm curious to hear what the rationale was for that seemingly awful element.

Isn't that the case with any bad architectural decision? That bad decision somewhere, to someone, seemed reasonable.

[craines]

I think it is fully cost!!

The labor involved to articulate detail that is not machince manufactured is out the roof. So when you mass produce detail elements it makes the detail component non specific. So much of the detail you describe as desirable that was created from hand is desiriable because on the human element and imperfection and the vary techniques that could be applied to achieve the same look.

If developers thought it was cost effective and they could turn a higher profit with detail rich structures, don't you think they would do it.

Foundation planting refers to the planting that occurs around the buildings footprint on the soil. I, I am Landscape Architect, hate foundation planting for some reason.

[Peter Whitley]

A follow-up question seems apparent: Provided that (all things being equal) cost has become the most significant factor in design decisions, how did we find ourselves here and what are our options?

My area of expertise is skateparks. In that context we skateboarders see many options available to decision-makers that seem like economical "compromises." As advocates it is our duty to present those options as cataclysmic failures -- which they usually are -- that will ultimately result in a failed facility. When decisions are based solely on cost-savings we are only left with one option; build nothing at all. When the success or failure of a structure or facility hinges in the balance of "decorative flourish," it's vital that the element be redefined as a foundational component in the reflective sense...not a structural sense.

In other words, if the death of architectural detail is happening it is because it was not valued. Those people who present plans and feel a sense of loss over this development need to revalue their depictions of these elements in some way that promotes their value. Right?

[craines]

Thats funny I am going to be designing a skate park next month and have been researching skateable art pieces!

Its not that people do not value "Detail" or enjoy it most simply do not have the time to debate the merits of it; but I bet you, If you ask anyone on the street what they felt was wrong with the buildings of the world they would say they are boring, not interesting and etc.

Though to counter myself, the lowest common denomantor (sic) is acceptance by the general public on a large scale.

[Luca]

In other words, if the death of architectural detail is happening it is because it was not valued.

Simple as that statement might seem, I think it is perceptive and that a lot of architectural commentators skirt this.

I think it is a combination of two factors:
- the increasing coarseness of popular culture has brought people, especially in the commercial sphere, to value quality, beauty or even just aesthetic prestige less highly, relative to monetary cost.
- A disciplined, self-referential, hyper-minimalist juggernaut has for about 80 years been churning out relentless, insidious, meretricious propaganda that offers an intellectual (indeed, overly intellectual) justification for removing gracefulness, meaning and order from architecture.
Together, the influences are very powerful: you can erect a cheap shed and call it "structurally honest".

Funnily enough, "period" or "pre-war" properties in most markets command (if properly restored) a clear price premium. Occasionally (indeed, quite rarely) some rich person or even some developer or public body will still create a new building full of detail and craftsmanship but this is: a) so rare as to constitute a statistical anomaly and b) has to withstand a mix of opprobrium and deafening silence from the starchitects' cheerleaders.

Those people who present plans and feel a sense of loss over this development need to revalue their depictions of these elements in some way that promotes their value. Right?

I honestly think that this battle may be lost for good. I think the only way it will be won, if ever, is through the living example of old and new buildings thus:
> I think it is critical that planners adopt an exceedingly strict policy toward the preservation and re-use of pre-war structures.
> Developers who care (if any exist) should make the effort to build properly, with detail and probably recoup that higher investment through higher prices. They will however, have to be prepared to withstand accusations of nostalgia-peddling, Disneyfication, plagiarism, pastiche-ism and, in at least one case I'm aware of, racism.

[Jess]

Sad... that is the only word for it.

I wonder if there is a way to encourage more people to become artisans and once again work towards the creation of grand architectural details.

...sometimes we can do this in religious buildings where time is not critical. Also, private residences with enough budget. These factors contribute to the creation of grand architectural details.

[Peter Whitley]

I think it is a combination of two factors:
- the increasing coarseness of popular culture has brought people, especially in the commercial sphere, to value quality, beauty or even just aesthetic prestige less highly, relative to monetary cost.
- A disciplined, self-referential, hyper-minimalist juggernaut has for about 80 years been churning out relentless, insidious, meretricious propaganda that offers an intellectual (indeed, overly intellectual) justification for removing gracefulness, meaning and order from architecture.

Another factor could be an evolving understanding of economies. If we can assume that the "death of architectural detail" is reflected in lots of other aspects of western (capitalist) society, such as in consumer goods, popular entertainment, and even social engineering, it illuminates additional influences on these shifting norms.

The most influential shift could be found in the principles of "economies of scale." Under this premise, a producer (be they an architect, musician, artist, or a person planning a bar mitzvah) may rely upon pre-existing models to save time and money. We all do this implicitly; nobody wants to make corn flakes when they can just buy a box of the stuff. Is that the "death of breakfast cereals?" Sure it is. Bring out the black armbands.

At one end of the spectrum we might see a crew of passionate, visionary craftsmen hand-hewing each timber for a home. At the other end of the spectrum the new home pulls up on 16 wheels and a crane gently places it onto its foundation. The sweet spot for everyone concerned is somewhere in the middle where needs are met (price, functionality, aesthetics) and the product, structure or place inhabits a unique reflective space (exhibits vision and craftsmanship). My sweet spot on this spectrum might be different than someone else's...but it's undeniable that the aggregate norm is shifting towards commoditization and away from artistry.

Personally I think it's a penduluum that inperceptibly swings back and forth. As a shift one direction occurs, a vacuum is created and the need for balance grows. Eventually that need is met (and a vacuum is created for the opposite).

Back on earth, however, one thing that creative solution providers CAN do is to quantify the value of "pretty." One way to do this, I believe, is in the concepts espoused by people like Donald Norman who essentially claim that attractive objects work better. The logic there goes that (and I'm probably going to mangle this) attractive devices put the mind at ease and open the user up to engagement, whereas unattractive objects cause the user's mind to seize with anxiety and thereby present a barrier to full utilization. This principle can of course be applied to consumer packaging, park design, architecture, and even city zoning.

[Luca]

The peak of architectural detail on EVERY building was the Victorian era which already understood mass production quite well.

What I mean by the coarseness of the culture is the loss of interest in aesthetics and the rise of the cult of 'originality'.

[Peter Whitley]

I often find myself filling the role of "dumbest person in the room," but (Luca) by claiming that Victorian archictecture exemplified the pinnacle of architectural detail...are you saying that this period also was the pinnacle of architectural order and meaning?

Because what some people may see is a lot of fillagree and superfilous ornamentation. (It's okay to say it but) does that make them coarse and insensitive to aesthetic prestige?

[Luca]

No, I'm not saying that Victorian, ehm..., "eclectic" architecture is the pinnacle of architectural expression (though I would definitely say that 99% of Victorian-era buildings are programmatically and architecturally superior to 99% of building built now).

I was merely saying that even people who understood industrialization and the bottom line could do details (indeed a lot of it), which is the topic of this thread.

Let's leave the major, trophy project aside for a second. Let’s just think about every-day office buildings and goods warehouses. You may not like Victorian buildings, but it is abundantly clear that when they built something they put a lot of thinking/effort (and money) into it. Victorian-era warehouses that were not torn down get turned into loft apartments and people love the detailing, etc. Wharehouses... Modern warehouses are concrete and steel sheds. No-one's gonna turn them into anything but scrap, 50 yrs form now. That is a coarsening of the culture.

[nrschmid]

No, I'm not saying that Victorian, ehm..., "eclectic" architecture is the pinnacle of architectural expression (though I would definitely say that 99% of Victorian-era buildings are programmatically and architecturally superior to 99% of building built now).

I was merely saying that even people who understood industrialization and the bottom line could do details (indeed a lot of it), which is the topic of this thread.

Let's leave the major, trophy project aside for a second. Let’s just think about every-day office buildings and goods warehouses. You may not like Victorian buildings, but it is abundantly clear that when they built something they put a lot of thinking/effort (and money) into it. Victorian-era warehouses that were not torn down get turned into loft apartments and people love the detailing, etc. Wharehouses... Modern warehouses are concrete and steel sheds. No-one's gonna turn them into anything but scrap, 50 yrs form now. That is a coarsening of the culture.

A lot of the details on industrial buildings in the 19th century, if there was much at all, were created using cast iron. Yes, you can do a lot of detail work pretty cheaply (but you also created a ton of pollution). Iron work was also heavily criticized by some of the elite at the time because design was not handcrafted but mass produced. People used brick because it was (1) cheap and (2) fire-resistant. Steel became much more prevalent in the late 19th century, and there are still rare examples of smaller sheds from that era. Concrete did not have the span needed for warehouses (reinforced concrete using steel supports did not really develop until the twentieth century).

I doubt anyone living in the 19th century envisioned people living in warehouses (it wasn't "proper"). Judging from history, maybe the "in" thing to do down the road is to convert warehouses built today in multi-family housing (it's not for us to say).

If you see most preserved warehouses from the 19th century, there isn't a heck of a lot of detail, they probably borrowed some elements of the italianate style within the friezes and windows arches/frames. Signage was usually painted right on the brick becasue it was cheaper to advertise than fancy signage.

[Luca]

The picture below shows the adjacent part of two buildings from different time periods. Both were meant for roughly the same purpose.

[Peter Whitley]

I can see that a call to arms for "smart" design is being made. That's something I can completely support and I face those challenges (cost-v-return) every day at work. It's an endless dialog with those people who hold the purse-strings and in the end, money really seems to make the final determination.

Does good design need architectural detail? Not necessarily, right? A building that evokes accurate meaning and provides adequate forms for its purpose is a successful building. Where, in the punchlist of duties, should a specification say "must include architectural detail?" What need does it meet? I'm not saying that I don't respect or enjoy it but I would question the appropriateness of including gratuitous detail where it fails to meet a specific need or, much worse (in my opinion) actually detract from the structure's grace.

Making the observation that the erosion of aesthetic value is only the first step in finding a solution. When and where is it missing? When and where is it appropriate?

(The photo above is interesting. Strikes me that buildings intended for public use have much more to gain from human-scale details than others due to the invitation to engage on some visceral level with the structure.)

[Streck]

Frank Lloyd Wright had a lot to do with the loss of detail. He began designing buildings and houses in the peak of ornamentation by the architectural firm he worked for - Adler and Sullivan. He designed amazingly simple and good architecture in 1906 with the "ornamentation" being the whole building (Robie House in Chicago for example).

His style of getting rid of all the unnecessary ornamentation was eventually recognized as being the right thing to do.

For most architects, the client had control of design based on budget. The client insisted on meeting his economic numbers in order for his business to be successful. The client insisted on economic justification of "ornamentation." As cost estimating became more detailed, the client could tell how much he was paying for the ornamentation portion of the construction budget, and had power to say delete this or that to reduce costs in his competitive business field.

Structural engineers were also part of the economic equation. Steel and concrete structures were designed to be ever more efficient in quantity or tonnage of steel used, because it was an economic factor that could now be identified separately in the building budget, This increased in accuracy with calculators and computers. Also, "pre-engineered" steel buildings emerged as a competitor to engineering offices. Early structural engineers used an estimated safety factor and buildings were designed with excess capacity to remain standing. Later, engineers agreed to a safety factor of some three or four to one, but it was still an intuitive concept in many cases. As the "pre-engineered" metal building could be designed by computers, the safety factor could be more accurately calculated and buildings were more efficiently designed. Accuracy in meeting just the actual requirements to hold up a building is noticeable in the movement of the structure by wind sway, or vibration, or "tremor" when heavy traffic rolls by.

Also as buildings got bigger and higher, there was less need to add detail that could not be appreciated up close. The old Chicago Board of Trade Building had a statute at the top, which it is reported that the artist refused to waste time putting a face on, because it was too high to be seen. Now that other buildings have windows at that level, it can be obviously seen that the statue has no face.

Architects were taught in the 50's and 60's to appreciate the texture of the material itself rather than all the ornamentation that was "added" to architecture. The simple massings of materials could be appreciated for their proportions and materials - not unessential "froo-froo." It was back to the basics of design - proportions and material colors and textures.

Eventually that design got too stark for the average person, and was perceived as being cold to the average person. There is now a perception that ornament was not all that bad, and developers are willing to spend a little more for buildings with it.

In summary, do not assume that lack of ornamentation is the architects "fault" when the design is largely controlled by the economics of the project and the depth of the pockets of the owner, or his emphasis on utility (not needing ornamentation) or image (insisting on unique design or height or corporate "statement.")

[Luca]

Interesting post, Mr Whitley.

[

It's an endless dialog with those people who hold the purse-strings and in the end, money really seems to make the final determination.

It always did. The difference is that 50-100 years ago people would not walk into a store that looked like a cattle shed to buy stuff. Now, if you promise 5% less (which you saved in the building costs) on plastic Chinese crap people will wade through pig-shit to have it. Simple as that.

A building that evokes accurate meaning and provides adequate forms for its purpose is a successful building.

Yes, that’s tautological. The issue is, what is “adequate form for its purpose”? Indeed, what is its purpose?

Where, in the punchlist of duties, should a specification say "must include architectural detail?" What need does it meet?

Very specifically, it meets the need to relieve mass without having to rely on impractical building shapes and other structural contortions that, in fact, cost a lot more than detail.

I'm not saying that I don't respect or enjoy it but I would question the appropriateness of including gratuitous detail where it fails to meet a specific need or, much worse (in my opinion) actually detract from the structure's grace.

Everyoine with open eyes and without an dieologicla axe to grind enjoys it. That’s the point.

I’m not sure how well-executed detail can detract from the grace of a very large, lumpen object (i.e. a building). Pewrhaps you can povide an example, as I did. Your use of the adjective “gratuitous” implies that “detail” is not inherently good.

(The photo above is interesting. Strikes me that buildings intended for public use have much more to gain from human-scale details than others due to the invitation to engage on some visceral level with the structure.)

I agree. Large buildings are sometimes necessary but also somewhat inhuman, up close. Detail humanizes them. On a small house, you don’t need much detail. Indeed, the best Bauhaus buildings were relatively small. The “visceral” aspect you speak of is, to me, the key point.

[Peter Whitley]

Great points, Streck!

I agree with the premise, Luca, that there is an expression of humanity and reflection in structures and forms that reveal a human touch. While I'm not an architect, I see your concepts clearly in changing face of graphic design. Having been a designer for more than a few decades (my focus being on consumer entertainment goods) I have seen the dawning of the Macintosh tear design a new asshole (pardon my french) then administer careful and calculated surgery on the hapless victim.

Design is an ebb and flow...a constant reinterpretation of the now...(yeah, that sounds super corny). Today's design norm is largely a reaction to yesterday's design norm, and so it goes. I believe that architecture is not so different with the exception that graphic design is much more temporal while the architectural record, for better or worse, seems to hang around for a long time.

However, my point is that if consumers are willing to walk through ---- to get a deal and provided that ---- is cheaper than carpet, what's the issue precisely? Is it that carpet is "always" inherently better? I don't think that it's safe to say that architectural detail is always necessary, doesn't always add value, and doesn't always serve a purpose. In some cases could the form benefit? Sure! But always? I'm unconvinced.

I'm not following how my statement was tautological. It seems clear to me that a building can easily fail to reveal its purpose and/or fail to provide the forms necessary to support that purpose. People remodel all the time for this very reason. Adequate form for its purpose would be exactly that form which delivers the support function necessary to enable the user to use the space (or form) as intended. Don't you remember living in the 1940s apartment building with your juicer, espresso maker, toaster, microwave, cordless phone, and radio...all with that single electrical plug? Inadequate design.

I didn't intend to suggest a value statement with the term "gratuitious." I meant that gratuitous detail may or may not enable an object or form to be better understood, appreciated, or used. Take a baroque frame on a cubist painting, for example. The frame provides ample detail but is (probably) at odds with the intended evocation of the artwork. The frame contains and ornaments...but it is a cardinal sin to have a frame that ill-fits the art it hosts. I believe the same is true on an architectural scale...I'm not saying that baroque frames are bad, just that they belong on baroque buildings. Or should I rue the absence of grotesques and a facade (a term in itself that exemplifies my point) on Frank Gehry's Experience Music Project?

Please refrain from using profanity in your posts. Keep in mind that this is a professional forum. Thanks!

[Luca]

However, my point is that if consumers are willing to walk through pig shit to get a deal and provided that pig shit is cheaper than carpet, what's the issue precisely? Is it that carpet is "always" inherently better?

Maybe not always, but typically. I think that the willingness of consumers to put up with awful, money-is-the-only consideration municipal and commercial buildings (and, indeed, pretty crappy, cheap “traditional” style homes) is a “bad” thing. I think the average person ahs yet to make the connection between a visual landscape most do not find attractive and their own individual choices.

I don't think that it's safe to say that architectural detail is always necessary, […] always add value, and […] always serve a purpose. In some cases could the form benefit? Sure! But always? I'm unconvinced.

“Always” is a big word. And it’s not the case that if a little detail is good, a lot must always be better. Styles/preferences do vary and I would guess most people nowadays would be more comfortable with, say, moderate Georgian/classic detail than full-on Victorian eclecticism. Certainly, not even the die –hard classicists would want to live in a Victorian interior.

I didn't intend to suggest a value statement with the term "gratuitious." I meant that gratuitous detail may or may not enable an object or form to be better understood, appreciated, or used. Take a baroque frame on a cubist painting, for example. The frame provides ample detail but is (probably) at odds with the intended evocation of the artwork. The frame contains and ornaments...but it is a cardinal sin to have a frame that ill-fits the art it hosts. I believe the same is true on an architectural scale...I'm not saying that baroque frames are bad, just that they belong on baroque buildings.

Certainly there can be inappropriate/incongruous detail. There can even be ugly detail. Post-modernist architecture is rife with both. My point is that just taking away all detail because it can, at times, be counterproductive is like not eating because sometimes food goes bad…you’d starve. If the architectural priesthood spent time trying to “enforce” quality detail and root out crap detail (with all the limitations of fashions, agreed) I would never even have started writing about this stuff.

[michaelskis]

I think that there have been several good points at the idea of how it came about and some of the factors involved, but there seems to still be a notable why question lingering in response to sociological changed. It was mentioned that much of the change was initiated by Frank Lloyd Wright and that it was the right thing to do… why was it the right thing, how was that determination made, and who was it that made that determination?

Much of the ornamentation can be purchased at any home improvement store and there are numerous companies that can make custom reproductions.

I think that it is a deeper issue that spans far greater than just the architectural detail, but appears to be a complete lack of anything beyond the simplest most efficient way possible. As an example, it is rare that people will actually get all dressed up to attend church, kids wear jeans and t-shirts to school, gardens will have simple, low maintenance shrubs, and bridges are constructed of support beams.

I don’t think that there is any one answer regarding the reasons why, but it seems that the lack of architectural detail is just a visual projection of a much greater problem. The simplified construction of most buildings these days is in far less quality than it was 100 years ago. The average rebuilding time for most fast food restaurants is now less than 10 years.

Do you think that there could be a significant resurgence in the use of architectural detail? What could be done to encourage this? Do you think that a point will arrive where people will start to want to see more than the simplest cheapest option?

[TexanOkie]

How do New Urbanist developments tackle architectural detail, especially those developments that are in an historic overlay district or some such thing. The few developments that are being built in central Texas only go about halfway (i.e. the Domain has a couple of buildings with older style that abruptly gets cut off at the third floor). Anyone else have a different story?

[Peter Whitley]

The casinos along the Las Vegas Strip are an extreme example of perishable architecture. Las Vegas' whole trip is about sustainability (and the outrageous lack thereof)...that, to me, is the "real" experience. Can one sustain oneself by gambling? Maybe, but the odds are lousy. Can the City of Las Vegas sustain itself on its current course? Maybe, but the odds are even worse.

In an ironic twist, the Las Vegas Strip is dripping with architectural detail. The focus of this topic is not really intended for these grandiose examples, I think...what we're talking about is residential and retail environments and structures; not blow-up monuments to humanity's perversions (though some might argue that Wal-Marts are just that).

The big-box chains are the usual suspects. Again, context and meaning are important. One can easily compare the design differences between Fred Meyer's and Target (in the western U.S. states). The detail is used to create parity from the other chains and build brand equity. Detail is not used to ornament (though that might be a favorable byproduct)...even crappy little strip malls might employ a small bit of lamp-black or contrasting texture at some additional expense to add visual interest and catch the consumer's eye. Again, the architectural detail provides a specific, identifiable service and (when it's done correctly) meets a need.

Another example might be the boutique groceries. Yuppie groceries emphasize raw, undadorned building materials to create a subtext of integrity and sincerity...though I don't know if they also save money by doing this. The net result is a hip, quasi-industrial shopping experience that contrasts the illicit, flea-market shopping experience with the exotic, exclusive products. The contrast builds a consumer experience that is dynamic and interesting. This approach DOESN'T work in economically depressed areas where the products tend to be less exotic as the whole environment then lacks the economically elevated end-point. (Areas in the process of rapid gentrification seem to struggle with changing local markets in this vein quite a bit...hip furniture boutiques next to 99-cent stores, etc.)

I've completely lost track of what I am talking about.

[Luca]

I've completely lost track of what I am talking about.

Takes a man to admit it!

[publicrec]

Something Pete mentioned made me think of retail chains and their structural details.

McDonalds has been building or re-modeling their stores for a decade now, to reflect the local history. It seems to have had some great success from the community point of view. Rather than the usual boring boring arch style, they are building to suite the local atmosphere. I don't have any examples to give unfortunately. I know the store in Asheville reflects upon the Vanderbilt history, stone facade, warm big fireplace etc. stores in the SW reflect upon that regions charchteristics. I know these are kind of bad examples because they are always busy regardless, but I think it shows they have paid attention, and want to better fit into their communities, and they are doing it with design.

[Planner News]

[QUOTE=michaelskis;392459]In this thread,

What happened? Did architects get lazy? They now design these crazy shaped buildings, but they don’t put stone gargoyles on the corners, detailed trim lines, or elaborate wood scrolling above the windows and doors.



Some of it must be laziness, but historically there was a change in style in the 20th century and today cheapness reigns on the part of builders. Following WWII, it appears every effort was made to make everything as simple, cold and bland as possible. See any major public building developed in that era (1945 - 1970.) This design demonstrated "progress" and "modernity". This is why much of the American landscape does not really differ from what you will find in Soviet Russia. These designs also made building cheaper. I will never forget seeing a portion of a major, centuries-old Ivy League campus 'revamped" with concrete walls shaped and imprinted with plywood. Seriously. Ever see the patten of a 4' X 8' piece of plywood imprinted on the side of a wall? Talk about low-budget design!

Beginning in the 1980's detail was reborn. It just has not gotten anywhere to where things were in the Victorian or Edwardian eras. Gargoyles cost $$$.

PN
P.S.: please share your old design review articles with me at: http://design-review-articles.spaces.live.com/